No subject

Bret Busby
.........................


      The FBI wants to read your email 
      By John Borland
      Staff Writer, CNET News.com
      September 1, 1999, 12:00 p.m. PT 

      Following the passage of new wiretap rules for wireless phones and other
digital networks,
      Washington policymakers are gearing up for a fight over the privacy of
email and other personal
      computer files. 

      Last week, the FBI won a small victory from federal regulators that will
allow it to listen in on
      conversations and track the location of wireless phone users, as long as
the agency first gets a court
      order. 

      But law enforcement officials say this is only half the battle. The FBI is
now looking for new powers to
      break through security software that renders email and other Internet
communications incoherent when
      traveling along a digital network. Even if the agency has the power to tap
digital communications, it still
      can't read or understand the messages sent if they are protected by
security software. 

      Privacy advocates, software industry executives, and a growing cadre of
tech-friendly legislators have
      strongly opposed the FBI's efforts, saying that giving law enforcement
easy access to protected email
      and other files could open the door to malicious hackers--or even official
abuse. 

      When Congress returns from its summer break later this month, it plans to
take up the question of how
      to regulate security issues with encryption software, which allows a user
to scramble computer files,
      email, or Internet voice conversations so they are indecipherable without
a software "key." 

      The leading bill in the debate, which would ease regulations over
encryption software, is strongly
      opposed by the FBI. 

      "The effort behind [our 1994 digital wiretap law] was to assure that law
enforcement would still have
      wiretap ability," said Sen. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), the author of the
pending Security and Freedom
      through Encryption Act. "There has never been a guarantee that they would
get the content [of
      messages]." 

      The technology of privacy
      The battles over the privacy of digital phone conversations and computer
files have been pushed to the
      fore in recent years as advanced technology has made it increasingly
easier for criminals to avoid the
      long arm of the law. 

      FBI officials say they need to be able to read encrypted messages as part
of their push to prevent
      criminal activity. Tapping phone lines is of little value if criminals can
send digitally scrambled
      messages--even if the software to do so is still not widely used, they
say. 

      "We're advocating that commercially available encryption software should
have some means of access to
      the plain text," said FBI spokesman Barry White. "To do otherwise would
jeopardize public safety." 

      The new digital wiretap rules, passed by the Federal Communications
Commission last week, stem from a
      1994 law dubbed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
They are largely geared to
      make sure the FBI can monitor and trace conversations on digital networks,
such as wireless or cable
      telephone systems, just as they can on traditional telephone networks. 

      Yet privacy groups and even some lawmakers have said the FCC went too far
in its latest decision in
      giving law enforcement new powers to monitor digital conversations. 

      "I don't want to say we've lost," said Mark Rotenburg, director of the
Electronic Privacy Information
      Center (EPIC), one of the leading groups lobbying for stronger privacy
protections. "But I certainly
      don't think we've won." 

      Rotenburg said his group would likely appeal the new rules, or even take
the issue back to Congress. 

      Looking for the back door
      FBI officials have long pressed for laws that would allow them to
translate the content of encrypted
      messages produced in the United States through a technological "back
door," or special code built into
      the software. 

      Yet Congress has not been receptive to this plan. Goodlatte's bill, which
will likely reach the House this
      month, explicitly bars the government from requiring this kind of
mandatory "back door" to be built into
      commercial software. 

      The government also has tried to slow the export of unbreakable encryption
products overseas, hoping
      to keep it out of the hands of foreign criminals. But this effort too has
met increasing resistance in
      Congress and in the courts. 

      Software programs that can give email and other files unbreakable
protection are already being written
      overseas, so it makes no sense for American programs to be written with
built-in weaknesses,
      opponents of the FBI's stance say. 

      "We are willing to do things to help law enforcement to deal with
encryption," Goodlatte said. "But
      they're going to have to deal with this problem no matter what we do." 

      Other solutions
      Law enforcement has pulled back from some of its original proposals, and
is now backing legislation that
      would give tax credits to software developers if they create accessible
encryption software, as well as
      require government agencies to use encryption that can be unscrambled by
authorized outsiders.

      But officials also are looking for new ways around the security problem.
According to a memo
      first obtained by the Washington Post, Justice Department officials are
seeking to get the
      authority to place bugs in suspected criminals' computers to gain access
to email and other
      files--before they are encrypted. 

      This has privacy groups on guard. 

      "We have the sense that over the long term, [the encryption argument] is
not an issue that the
      U.S. federal government will win," Rotenburg said. "But what is happening
in the meantime is
      that governments are successfully seeking expanded surveillance authority.
That's been the
      story behind the story in the encryption debate." 
.....................................